While on the subject of address book fields - I haven't checked the vCard 2.1 standard, but could we add a photo field? It would be optional to fill in of course, but it would be nice to have the option.
/Martin. On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:12:13 +0200, Thomas Bruederli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Tobias 'tri' Richter wrote: >> Hi, >> >> if the rev306 patch doesn`t fit into the concept i'm sorry, i got it > wrong. my thought was to have all vcard 2.1 fields in the contact table. > i'm no longer sure about that but i thought that only these fields which i > created in the contact database table are allowed in the vcard 2.1 > standard. So there is no need to have more then these fields in the > database or otherwise you break the vcard 2.1 standard. There is also a > newer vcard 3.0 standard but this standard isn't very common and there are > only a few fields which are new. >> >>> 2006/8/10, Eric Stadtherr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> Should rev306 be backed out then? It goes against this concept. >> no problem about that - my patch was only a idea to improve the > addressbook, >> if there are other ideas or concepts it will be great. >> >> to make the addressbook look better even with all vcard fields in the > database, it can be a option to show only these fields which are filled. > And then if you edit the contact there can be a new button somewhere to > view all fields. If you then fill a field which wasn't shown before > (because it wasn't filled), it is shown after you saved your changes for > the processed contact. > > Mac or GMail users might already know what I'm talking out, others > please see the attached image. I imagine a dynamic address edit form > that lets the user create new input fields and address sections as > he/she needs them. > > My first intension was to save all data "serialized" as a vCard or Lfid > string in one single database field and unpack it when needed. But I > also like the suggestion of Eric having a table holding all the vCard > fields and values and meanwhile I'd prefer that solution. > > Once again, I hope you all understand my ideas about the design of the > "new" address book. It's a bit more complex than just having one table > and 50 fields to edit and that's also the reason why I haven't > implemented it yet. It should be more RoundCube-like :-) > > Regards, > Thomas > > >
